(Original post by tomhitchings)
Thanks for arguing back, my turn... By the way, this started as an excellent thread, but there are too many short, one sentence, replies... If we're going to argue, let's do it properly...

Firstly, I want to highlight one phrase that perfectly depicts the differences between us and, in my opinion, the downfall of your agrument: 'American Imperialism'

Let's look at American 'Imperialism' in the middle east...

America actively supports Israel through financial, economic, political and military aid. America has given preferential treatment to Israel over every other middle eastern country. To many of you this is a narrow minded, dangerous and, above all, imperial approach to middle eastern foreign policy. However, we should compare Israel to its middle eastern neighbours. While the Palestinian Authority sits back and takes a passive approach to condeming arab terrorism, Israel actively fights to dismantle terrorist organisations. As Iran imposes theocracy on its citizens and prevents democratic elections taking place legitimately, Israel's politicians are regularly accountable to their electorate. As Syria continues to condem the practice of religions other than Islam, Israel has the right to follow any religious belief written into its constitution. And as the former Iraq tortured, murdered and brutally surpressed its own citizens, America restored freedom of speech, secularism, liberal economics and, most importantly, democracy.

In my opinion, America is every bit entitled to support Israel and force regime change in Iraq. Many of you criticise this as 'imperial', I fundamentally disagree. Look again at my list of American values...

freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, free market values, the spread of democracy, equality between sexes and races, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, accountablity in politics, representative voting systems, anti-corruption legislation, wealth on the basis of merit....

Now tell me, are these imperial values or basic human rights?

If you believe that this is not the ideal political system for all humans then you may call America imperial. If, however, like me you consider all of these values to be human rights, which everyone deserves the opportunity to be given, then you must never say that America is imperial. It may impose a system of values, but those values are common values which we all share regardless of race or culture, and for that very good reason, we should we thankful for American Liberalism.

And also, when I described the violations of human rights in the middle east it was a reference to Arab culture. I am not saying that the koran endorses any of them, however you should accept that the majority of Arab states have adopted them as part of their tradition and culture. Don't forget thousands of Palestinians celebrating on September 11th...

You're right - it's a relief to talk properly about this, and not just trade insults.

I understand what you're saying about Israel being the only country to actively fight terrorism, but I'm not sure if that's entirely true. We have to bear in mind that all news we hear is passed through filters and no news programme is neutral. I'm not going down the hysterical "The news is lying!!" route, just suuggesting that we may not be being told everything that happens.
I appreciate that Israel is a much more Western country in its political attitudes, and describe them very well, but America's support of this this is partially what I have a problem with - the US is actively funding the country that is most like them, almost trying to encourage a "mini-America" in the Middle East. I know that's an exaggeration, but I feel that's the sort of attitude that's being taken. Surely is the US wants their values all over the world they should work on the other, less Westernised countries? I personally don't endorse their doing that, but within their own set of morals shouldn't that be their plan?

I believe the forcing of values, whether they are "right" or not, to be imperialism. Just because you (and others, don't take this as an attack) believe the American values being imposed on Irap are human rights it doesn't mean that America had the right to impose them. Of course most of what went on under Saddam was horrific and totally wrong (in my opinion, and most others'), but I do not believe it was the US's place to go and change that without permission from higher bodies. I believe it to be real arrogance on the part of America to assume that what they think must be absolutely right, and that they must act, regardless of law and reason. (I know my language is emotive, I'll try and quell my passions....)

A vital distinction that must be made is whether America was trying to impose human rights, or a political system they agreed with. In my opinion their true motive was the latter and they hid under a facade of doing it for the former. Your list of values confuses these two: some are human rights, some are purely political. For example, wealth on the basis of merit is a capitalist ideal fully embraced by America, but not all countries - it is not a "common value which we all share regardless of race or culture". The US do NOT have the right to decide what political system a country should be run by. Bush is president of the USA, not the world.

The real crux of the argument is based on a moral principle that people, no matter how much argument is engaged in, will always disagree on: is it right for one nation to impose its own values over those of another? My answer is a shaky no (there's still a lot thinking to be done about this on my part), and I fully accept that your answer may be yes; that's just a moral difference between us.

Yes, non-democratic Arab states often use Islamic laws, but please see that it's the dictatorships in those states that impose those laws on the population; it's the government every time. As far as the Palestinians celebrating on 9/11, they were a very small minority. And if you were the kind of person that would do that, wouldn't you go and do it in a predominantly Muslim country?

(Original post by PadFoot90)
o yeah mass graves come on hitler used mass graves. People who use ethnic cleansing use mass graves. Are you comparing us to them? Your defination of torture is absurd. Sleep deprivation? Not being allowed to see family members? Being tortured is far more serious then either of those. Serious convicts aren't allowed to see family, are they being tortured? Sleep deprivation? That is a joke.

Surely u could have combined your posts so u didn't post like 7 times in a row on page 5?

Apologises for the muliple posts, but if I'd combined them into one it would've been hard for people to see who I was replying to, and long posts put off people with short attention spans.
Yes, Hitler and ethnic cleansers did use mass graves, and so did you. Draw your own conclusions.
Ever been properly deprived of sleep? Evidently not, cos if you had you'd know it's serious torture, physically and psychologically. If dogs go 6 days without sleep they die, we're probably not far off that. Also, try thinking about what they do to deprive them of sleep (think loud music, even beatings).

(Original post by suspicious_fish)
Apologises for the muliple posts, but if I'd combined them into one it would've been hard for people to see who I was replying to, and long posts put off people with short attention spans.
Yes, Hitler and ethnic cleansers did use mass graves, and so did you. Draw your own conclusions.
Ever been properly deprived of sleep? Evidently not, cos if you had you'd know it's serious torture, physically and psychologically. If dogs go 6 days without sleep they die, we're probably not far off that. Also, try thinking about what they do to deprive them of sleep (think loud music, even beatings).

I don't use mass graves, i have seen absoutly no evidence to say my country does, so excuse me if i find ur accusasions rather rediculus

(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
But they should not be held without being charged.

I don't know; they were picked up in a warzone, some fighting and some training to fight against coalition troops. In that sense, I'd say they're valid prisoners of war, and I'd rather see them held than not.

(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
The uranium tipped bullets were from the first gulf war, and they were left behind when america pulled out. Nothing personal, but I don't think you're going to be able to set a democracy or withdraw for that matter as the saddam loyalists, as well as terrorists won't let you. Look at the way iraqi police recruits have been targetted by suicide bombers, there are people who do not want you to withdraw. They want to make you stay for so long, you will end up losing too many men, just like vietnam.

Depleted uranium tipped, not uranium tipped. It's old, dead, spent uranium with a tiny, tiny degree of radioactivity. It's not designed to kill be radiation and is safe to handle; remember, these tank crews load them by hand!

(Original post by Zarjazz)
I don't know; they were picked up in a warzone, some fighting and some training to fight against coalition troops. In that sense, I'd say they're valid prisoners of war, and I'd rather see them held than not.

I find that immoral - freedom and democracy was what the USA was built on. The laws are that you cannot hold a prisoner for two years without charge - those laws should be obeyed.

(Original post by piginapoke)
Try pulling your head out of your arse. The two aren't compatible, period.

If you're going to revert to childish insults I really don't see the point in even trying to communicate with you. I'll give it a go anyway.
Any one person can be a Muslim and live in a democracy. Proof? Look around you. Any leader of any country can be a Muslim and rule a country fairly. Just because it isn't happening currently doesn't mean that it couldn't in principle.
Why are you incapable of separating religion and politics? Why can't you see that Saddam was both a Muslim and a dictator, and not a dictator because he was a Muslim? In all seriousness, what's stopping you from making that distinction?
From your comments it's evident that you've never even seen a Qur'an or a Hadith, and you know next to nothing about Islam.

(Original post by PadFoot90)
did u even read the first one? Try reading it again, and u will see that it says the bodies were those of shiites killed in an uprising against sadam.

Ok here is something new I am going to agree with Padfoot but im not going to be nice about it.

Suspicous Fish can you even read english??? The articles clearly state that the mass graves are being sorted through by american forensic scientists. An incase you dont understand that i'll explain it clearly in words you will understand...... Sadam get mad and go boom boom killing people then he buried them, then america get very mad and get sadam and discover mass graves...... UNDERSTAND NOW? and you are the one being ridiculous or as you would say "rediculous"

(Original post by MuniE)
Ok here is something new I am going to agree with Padfoot but im not going to be nice about it.

Suspicous Fish can you even read english??? The articles clearly state that the mass graves are being sorted through by american forensiv scientists. An incase you dont understand that i'll explain it clearly in words you will understand...... Sadam get mad and go boom boom killing people then he buried them, then america get very mad and get sadam and discover mass graves...... UNDERSYAND NOW? and you are the one being ridiculous or as you would say "rediculous"